By around 1 a.m., however, I began to wonder if this party had run its course. I had seen plenty. This included girls taking photos with East Lansing police, the removal of a stop sign, bleeding heads from airborne glass bottles, public consumption of alcohol, flashing and many subsequent arrests. What else needed to happen?

“We want tear gas” was the chant I heard from my apartment. Watch out what you wish for.

The editorial “Student riot pointless; hurts MSU’s reputation” (SN 4/7) hit the nail right on the head. The people who remained in the streets after the declaration of an unlawful assembly were in clear violation of a 1968 state law prohibiting unlawful assembly or presence at an unlawful assembly. Moreover, when some people threw bricks and beer bottles at police officers, they should have expected a response.

And that response was rather restrained: Only 13 tear gas canisters were fired in comparison to the firing of 299 rounds in 2005. I think the police did their job: Getting a situation that seemed to be out of control under control.

The police acted in accordance with the law.

Now that we have seen the East Lansing police follow the law on the streets, it is time for the next step: following the law in its prosecution of crimes. East Lansing police Public Information Officer Kim Johnson told the Michigan Messenger the East Lansing police were “going after anyone that had any part of getting this party started.”

East Lansing police Chief Tom Wibert said “we intend to review the Web site posts and consider charges against the Web site originator and others who incited this riot.”

This apparently included the Facebook.com account holder who created the event for Cedar Fest.

I hope that before overzealous prosecution begins, East Lansing’s city attorney and the Ingham County prosecutor carefully examine state law and city ordinances.

It is unclear which statute the Facebook author violated. Might the author actually be guilty of inciting a riot?

Not according to the 1968 state law that is still on the books. The statute in this case only applies to an individual “intending to cause or to aid or abet the institution or maintenance of a riot” or to anyone urging unlawful behavior. The now-defunct Facebook event called for a street party. A prosecuting attorney would be hard-pressed to make the case that the author intended to cause a riot or that he or she should be held responsible for the actions of thousands of other individuals.

I’m not a lawyer, but I looked through Michigan’s compiled laws for any other statute that would in some way regulate Internet postings related to the incident. The only other section that had any reference to “riot,” “unlawful assembly,” or “Internet,” is an amended 1931 act that forbids the dissemination of malicious messages about others without consent.

My obviously unsolicited advice to prosecuting attorneys here is not to go overboard. People who committed assaults, destroyed public property or in any other way obviously violated the law, should certainly be charged with a crime.

But charging someone with a crime for creating an event last November? I don’t see how there’s much of a case there — particularly when there doesn’t even seem to be a law that this person broke.

The bottom line is representatives of the city should not squander public support in the wake of the police’s handling of this incident by threatening charges in cases where no apparent crime has been committed.

Let’s keep the long arm of the law in its proper and well-defined place.

Eric Gregory is a State News columnist. Reach him at ericwgregory@gmail.com